Cutts v Head [1984] Ch 290
Judgment date: 07 December 1983
Related
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
What Is the True Extent of FDR Privilege?
In L v O (Stay of Order; Hadkinson Order; Security for Costs) [2024] EWFC 6 (26 January 2024) Cobb J considered whether a judge hearing a Barder (or Thwaite) application can/should be made aware of what took place at the FDR appointment where the original order was agreed and
AP v BP & Ors (financial remedies – appeal – disclosure – privilege) [2023] EWFC 169
Judgment date: 09 March 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/169
HHJ Vincent. The facts are as stated in this summary. On the husband’s discovery of the wife’s agreement with the intervenors he sought disclosure of the first agreement. W and the intervenors asserted that it
Related
BC v BC [2025] EWFC 236
Peel J. Save for four specific matters, parties cannot refer to what happened at the pFDR. The Financial Remedies Court – Primary Principles paragraph 8 issued by Mostyn J and HHJ Hess goes too far by saying that the court should be told that offers were made and that an was indication given.
What Is the True Extent of FDR Privilege?
In L v O (Stay of Order; Hadkinson Order; Security for Costs) [2024] EWFC 6 (26 January 2024) Cobb J considered whether a judge hearing a Barder (or Thwaite) application can/should be made aware of what took place at the FDR appointment where the original order was agreed and
AP v BP & Ors (financial remedies – appeal – disclosure – privilege) [2023] EWFC 169
Judgment date: 09 March 2023
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/2023/169
HHJ Vincent. The facts are as stated in this summary. On the husband’s discovery of the wife’s agreement with the intervenors he sought disclosure of the first agreement. W and the intervenors asserted that it
Latest
Cross-examination in Financial Remedy Claims
[2026] 2 FRJ 88. Cross-examination can have a material impact on the court’s findings of fact and determination of issues. This article is written for the occasional cross-examiner, as an aide mémoire of the rules, as a guide to doing the job well.
A Fairer End? Gaps in the Government’s Nuptial Agreement Proposals
On 5 June 2026, the Government published A Fairer End to Relationships, proposing comprehensive reform of the financial consequences of both divorce and separation for unmarried couples. This piece focuses on the Government’s plan to introduce binding qualifying nuptial agreements (QNAs).
50 Years on from Martin v Martin 1976 – Are Add-backs Fit for Purpose?
[2026] 2 FRJ 94. Add-backs were a useful mechanism to prevent one party’s unilateral dissipation of assets which unfairly prejudiced the non-dissipating spouse’s share. But something has gone wrong when the outcomes deviate too far from what the average person considers fair.